Now ‘They’ Want Our Dirt Too

Well, it makes sense, doesn’t it? Why wouldn’t they want to
regulate our dirt? They are the government; they are here to help us by
regulating our every thought and act, particularly as it affects our
‘environment’—air, food, water, weather, species,
energy…and now the earth, literally, the soil itself.

Most private landowners have probably never heard of the National Resources
Inventory (NRI), a program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil
Conservation Service. NRI is a statistical survey of land use and natural
resource conditions on non-federal lands which includes privately owned land,
tribal and trust land, and lands controlled by State and local
governments. The survey is conducted in cooperation with Iowa State
University’s Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology.

The USDA claims “the NRI is unique because it: [1] Features data
gathered and monitored since 1982 by thousands of technical and natural resource
data collection experts; [2] Is directly linked to the NRCS Soil Survey database
which permits analysis of resources in relation to soil resources and
conditions; [3] Provides a nationally consistent database that can be used to
statistically evaluate trends in natural resources over time for all non-Federal
lands.”

The database “allows for manipulation of various parameters in order to
make accurate assessments” and for “these manipulations and
subsequent analyses to be useful for public policy considerations…The NRI
plays a key role in development of conservation policy and programs for the
Nation. It…provides a comprehensive nationally consistent source of
data for researchers in many fields. Informed and valid decisions are best
made when based upon scientifically derived data…The NRI database is
powerful, credible, and scientifically constructed. The present NRI is the
result of many decades of development.”

The average citizen is led to believe the NRI is a valuable government
program—definitely a wise and benevolent use of taxpayer funds. After all,
it is contended this type of scientific information is very important and only
the federal government has the funds and know-how to do such an extensive study
which benefits farmers, ranchers and, in fact, all citizens.

Ronald Amundson (Division of Ecosystem Sciences, UC Berkeley), in his study,
Human Effects on Soil Diversity in California and the United States,
states: “Over the past two centuries, we have reconfigured part of a
continent to the point where today’s landscape is almost unrecognizable
from its natural state…”

Professor Amundson goes on to say, “Soils are geological bodies that
take thousands to millions of years to develop. And, unlike living species, they
do not reproduce nor can they be recreated. It is therefore imperative that
discussions of soil diversity and preservation begin in our government and
educational institutions. We will need to learn from the biodiversity
battles waged by our biologist colleagues as we enter the political and
economic arenas where preservation debates of all types are ultimately
staged.” (March, 1998, Geotimes)

Amundson and his fellow researcher, Peng Gong, professor of ecosystem
sciences at UC Berkeley’s College of Natural Resources and co-author of
the paper, “found 508 endangered soil series in the United States.”
They “also found that 31 soils are effectively extinct because they have
been nearly completely converted to agricultural or land use.”

Amundson and other researchers, “standing at the forefront of soil
activism,” used data from digitized maps on soil types compiled by the
National Resource Conservation Service and from maps of agricultural and urban
growth provided by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Environmental Protection
Agency.

“In essence,” said Amundson, “soil diversity is tied to
biological diversity.” The researchers believe “rare and unique
soils” must be preserved.

Gong also maintains, “Some of these soils developed over thousands to
millions of years. We can destroy that in a few hours. It's a preservation
issue. We need to save it for future generations.” (emphasis
added)

While Amundson does not advocate doing away with agriculture in the U. S., at
least not yet, he does “think it’d be fair to set aside modest areas
of these remaining natural landscapes for study and contemplation.”

“Scienta est potentia.” (Knowledge is power.) Genius is not
required to understand how and why information can be purposely used to control
people and their property.

On May 14, 2004, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service
Agency (FSA) announced several program refinements to the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) including critical software advancements that “will
contribute to better administration of the CRP…The software incorporates
several databases, including soils, Conservation Priority Areas and
watersheds…”

“FSA also has developed a CRP Geographic Information System (GIS) tool
to be used by county offices to calculate acreage and the maximum soil rental
rate for land being offered. FSA has been working to transform all of its
farmland maps to a digital or GIS format. This conversion allows for more
accurate acreage calculations and for a more precise mapping of soil types. The
GIS tool will also reduce many of the manual tracking and calculations done in
the county offices and result in more efficient program
administration.”

Modern Americans, living in the “information age”, in the
“age of reason and scientific advancement”, are arguably the most
pathetically ignorant and gullible generation in the history of western
civilization. Common Sense has been replaced by apathy; individualism and
rational thinking have been traded away for ‘security’ and creature
comforts.

The vast majority of Americans are not paying attention, too busy working, or
too busy playing. We have been mentally conditioned and swindled by the mass
media and by con-artists posing as “scientific authorities.” Our
children are being dumbed down in government indoctrination centers (called
‘public schools’) to accept and endorse authoritarian
government.

Thomas Jefferson, concerned about the future, asked: “Or will they, in
the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without
character is the path to destruction.” “They” are
“we.” We have lost or given away, in the past two generations, a
large portion of the liberty secured for us by Jefferson and his
contemporaries.

When one of the “thousands of technical and natural resource data
collection experts” knocks on your door and declares, “I’m
here to incorporate statistical data on your private soil and water resources
into a national, computerized database,” how will you respond?